That’s Right: Chris Christie Is a ‘Good Conservative Republican’

John Nichols of the Nationmakes what should be, but is not (for reasons I’ll attempt to explain below), an obvious point about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie:

Christie also knows his party won’t be looking for a Northeastern moderate in 2016. The GOP has never been more conservative than it is now; and while the motivation to win may be powerful, the common wisdom among the folks who actually nominate presidential candidates says that experiments with supposedly “mainstream” figures like John McCain and Mitt Romney will not be repeated. So Christie is executing a delicate maneuver. He needs to run left this year to pump up his gubernatorial re-election vote numbers, and then pivot right in states like Iowa and South Carolina. Amid all the gamesmanship, it’s easy to lose sight of where Christie is really coming from—unless you look at his record.

Christie is no moderate. He’s a social conservative who opposes reproductive rights, has defunded Planned Parenthood and has repeatedly rejected attempts to restore state funding for family planning centers. He has vetoed money for clinics that provide health screenings for women, including mammograms and pap smears. He vetoed marriage equality.

Nichols goes on to declare that “Christie is at his most militant when it comes to implementing the austerity agenda associated with the most conservative Republican governors.”

By way of throat-clearing, I have a big problem with the term “austerity” being thrown at governors. Most states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets. Having done so, many states are now in a healthy fiscal position and should see revenue return to pre-recession levels this year. Critics of austerity at the federal level understood this all along. The anti-austerians, as I interpret them, aren’t against cutting spending always, anywhere, and everywhere; their argument was, and is, that contractionary fiscal policy in Washington makes our unemployment problem worse. In the face of state and local cutbacks, Congress should have been cushioning the blow.

But Nichols is largely correct: Christie is by any reasonable measure a fiscal and social conservative.

The perception that he’s some kind of squish or turncoat is a manifestation of the self-defeating tribal warfare between conservatives. Consider former Speaker Newt Gingrich as a counterexample: here was an ideologically unreliable loose cannon who, five minutes before the primary season, had embraced cap-and-trade and enjoyed a quasi-sleazy camaraderie with government-sponsored enterprises like Freddie Mac. Yet he made a big splash entirely because of tonal aggressiveness. As I put it months after he’d crashed and burned, conservative primary voters loved Newt (if only briefly) because of how much he loathed his secular-progressive-radical community-organizing antagonists.

His record, they could overlook. Because he was going to take it tothe Left.

Romney’s record as governor was even more problematic. But the eventual nominee put his finger on the root of his primary troubles when he said he was “not going to set my hair on fire” to attract votes.

Chris Christie’s problems today are largely of this “hair on fire” variety. Yes, he’s “moderate” on immigration and guns. Those seem like big deals now, but I suspect they will be less so by 2015. Christie’s longer-term hurdle will be to dispel the notion that he is too solicitous of media favor and too complimentary of his opponents.

This is really quite something when you think about it: of all people, Chris Christie may not be enough of a jerk to satisfy the Breitbart right.

Hide 43 comments

Christie opposing the construction of a tunnel on fake, austerian grounds seems like a fair reason to criticize him. (“New Jersey commuters will continue to suffer workday delays, miss out on job opportunities and forgo $4 billion in personal income thanks to Governor Chris Christie’s decision to kill a rail tunnel to New York, independent congressional investigators said”).

On Christie, David Frum wrote a little while back, “A left-wing friend of mine jokes that conservatives are “the party of affect”: meaning that conservatives tend to care much more how a politician speaks than what a candidate says. Christie almost perfectly exemplifies this rule. If he were a soft-spoken, conciliatory Northeastern budget-balancer, he’d be dismissed as a Bill Weld/Mike Castle RINO. But instead, he’s an-in-your-face confrontationalist. So he can favor handgun control and still be the Coulter choice for president. Just so long as he’s rude about it.”

Romney’s “hair on fire” comment only came after he had the nomination sewn up. But his whole approach during the primaries was appealing to people who really, really hated the president (“Mitt Romney did substantially better [in the NH primary] among the 40 percent of voters who described themselves as “angry” toward the Obama administration than he did among the electorate as a whole — he got 46 percent of the angries, and only 39 percent of voters overall. … it is at Romney events that I have found voters who are most caustic and even vitriolic toward Barack Obama. They are voters who are not necessarily evangelical or “tea party,” and so would not be rated as conservative or extreme in a pollster’s survey. But they really, really loathe Obama and just want to get him the heck out of the White House, which leads them to support the Republican who they figure has the money and profile to get the job done: Mitt Romney. “). That’s why Romney’s campaign slogan & book title were intended to imply that the president of the United States doesn’t believe in the United States.

Romney could only appeal to the angries because he had the support of the Party. Gingrich could do so in fits and starts, but once he started to gain support, a pile of former colleagues would pop up on Fox to tell the voters that Newt was actually a whiny squish, or whatever.

Christie is at risk of devastating attacks from Ted Cruz or Rand Paul reminding GOP voters of the time Christie said something nice about President Obama– during the presidential campaign! Those attacks could only be easily repelled if Christie is chosen ahead of time by the Party elite, like Romney and Bush Jr. were.

I don’t think that Christie will get that kind of support ahead of time, and therefore I don’t think he has much of a chance in the 2016 primaries.

(1) No, Christie is not a conservative. How is he a conservative? To my knowledge, he is not conservative on abortion or homosexuality either. He is a typical Northeastern neoliberal – do everything for the large parasitic corporations that nest there, cut the budget for everyone else if you have to, make taxation more regressive, support the warfare and police state (which includes gun control), but also unlimited immigration and sexual liberalism. This is the typical GOP in New Jersey, New York, Eastern Pennsylvania, and urban (southern) New England – Giuliani, Christine Todd Whitman, Pataki, Arlen Specter, Romney….

(2) You are right, this can be overlooked due to his adulation for chewing out ‘teh liberalz’, much like crowds of ‘Christian’ voters cheered Newt’s adultery when Newt turned the question around to ‘screw off, liberal media’.

But, somehow I don’t see him having the will for a national campaign. And if tribalism looks kindly upon his polemicism, it can be turned against his behaviour in Oct/Nov 2012.

He doesn’t have to be a jerk. But he does have have a firm grip that easing immigration is a nonstarter for most citizens. It certainly is for me. As much as I like him and appreciate his responsible act of responsibility to hes term as governor — any attempt by him to pander to the illegal immigration crowd —

“Christie is no moderate. He’s a social conservative who opposes reproductive rights, has defunded Planned Parenthood and has repeatedly rejected attempts to restore state funding for family planning centers. He has vetoed money for clinics that provide health screenings for women, including mammograms and pap smears. He vetoed marriage equality.”

It literally does not matter what he does, how solicitous he is of media favor, or how complimentary he is of his opponents. If he gets the nomination (and he will if party leadership pushes him like they pushed Romney) he’ll be played up by the media as the classic evil conservative bogeyman, just as Romney and McCain were before him.

That Nation article is simply laying the groundwork for the assault by the left. Contrary to the author, McCain and Romney were not “experiments”, and they were indeed “mainstream”, AKA centrist. They were absolutely par for the course for a party that has consistently spurned its own base and sought out the center, at least when it’s come to presidential elections.

And the thing to know about Christie is that he is particularly unbothered by the idea of abandoning his own party or principles if it’s going to help him electorally. But GOP leadership won’t care about that if they think that his moderate status and appeal might give them a shot at 2016.

I remember when I was in high school in the early 2000’s and I thought that if only the Republicans could nominate a guy like McCain – the media loves him! – they’d easily overcome the tribal nature of modern politics and wrap up any election. As it turned out it was the media’s tribal nature that I’d underestimated.

It literally does not matter what he does, how solicitous he is of media favor, or how complimentary he is of his opponents. If he gets the nomination (and he will if party leadership pushes him like they pushed Romney) he’ll be played up by the media as the classic evil conservative bogeyman, just as Romney and McCain were before him.

The thing to remember about Republican electoral failures is that they’re absolutely never ever Republicans’ fault.

Christie I think has the blessing and curse of being the “Democrats favorite Republican”. I think he’d be a formidible general election candidate, but I can’t see how he has a chance in the Republican primary, and there lies the rub.

I’d also caution to keep in mind his support may be broad but I’m not sure it is deep. This is a guy who only barely defeated an absolute train wreck of a governor in Jon Corzine, who got electoral help from a 3rd party Sierra-Club endorsed candidate who got mid single digits votes, and who’s unfavorable ratings were high pre-Sandy. Sandy not only helped his approval ratings but also led Cory Booker, popular Newark Mayor, to choose to run for the US Senate rather than against Christie and Christie now has a lightweigt Dem nominee.

Not that there is anything wrong with being fortunate in your general election opponent (See Obama, Barack), and a win is a win particularly if you are in the GOP in NJ. That said, I’d be careful not to overread too much into thinking that what played well in NJ in 2009 & 2013 means he necessarily has broad crossover appeal rather than the specific facts of the two elections he has run.

“If he gets the nomination (and he will if party leadership pushes him like they pushed Romney) he’ll be played up by the media as the classic evil conservative bogeyman, just as Romney and McCain were before him.”

But he will have been a ‘successful’ governor in a a very liberal state and unlike Romney, he has hasn’t traded in much of his conservative capital to do so. New Jesry is not white bread Massachusetts.

“That said, I’d be careful not to overread too much into thinking that what played well in NJ in 2009 & 2013 means he necessarily has broad crossover appeal . . .”

I agree. He also has a style that can be considered abrupt. I like that about him. Doesn’t mean that he’s always right, but it does suggest that he is fairly straight forward and does not like being otherwise, even with the media.

“he’s “moderate” on … guns. Those seem like big deals now, but I suspect they will be less so by 2015.”

Really? Just like McCain and Romney? If the Republican bosses chose to nominate another ‘wet’ on gun control, I think they can kiss the election goodbye. He might get endorsements, but endorsements don’t translate into enthusiasm.

The Republicans think that pro-gun voters have nowhere to go, they are mistaken. They will go home.

Based on what I am reading in response to this article, the takeaway is that it doesn’t matter that Christie has pushed conservative governance such as cutting spending or shrinking the public payroll-what matters is that he has largely been center-right on issues such as gay rights, abortion, or illegal immigration. It doesn’t matter that he was the first prominent Republicsn to endorse Romney, or that he campaigned and cheerleaded for Romney from beggining to end-what matters is that he actually acted friendly towardthe current president a week before the election, and th fact that this took place amidst the worst natural disaster to ever strike in New Jersey is entirely inconsequential. And it does not matter that he is a Republican enjoying strong support in a state that is a longtime Democrat stronghold, because his chances of possibly being a viable Repblican candidate several years from now are already scuttled.
Yeah, that about sums it up.

Rand Paul is my guy for 2016, but the odds favor a Christie or Jeb Bush. Both are conservative enough for the party establishment and the Tea Party, paleo and libertarian types never seem capable of uniting behind one candidate.

“Romney’s “hair on fire” comment only came after he had the nomination sewn up. But his whole approach during the primaries was appealing to people who really, really hated the president (“Mitt Romney did substantially better [in the NH primary] among the 40 percent of voters who described themselves as “angry” toward the Obama administration than he did among the electorate as a whole”

—That is an odd description of Romney’s support. I think it fits Gingrich better. Romney did best among the seemingly about 40% of mostly elderly Republican primary voters who always want to vote for a winner, thus, they are a shill voting block for the media- and business-anointed “front runner”. This group gave us Dole, McCain, and Romney. The numbers you cite from NH are certainly real, but they are not representative because his opponents there were Paul and Huntsman, whose voters pegged themselves to the Left. Most anywhere else Romney’s numbers on such questions were below average.

@Hetzer

Defunding Planned Parenthood does not make you pro-life. Some libertarians think there should be abortion on demand up to birth but no government money should go towards it. It would be an odd parallel universe where opposition to govt-funded abortion meant you could not even be a “moderate”.

Keep this in mind when making rude, flippant comments.

@everyone

The fact that you are even debating voting for a neoliberal Republican who stands for almost nothing this magazine believes in shows how beholden you are to mainstream politics (not only the two-party system but who “can win” within the parties) and demonstrates itself how Christie has a shot in the primaries.

Thank you for injecting that bit of reality into the discussion. The basic point of Keynesian economics is that government spending should be counter-cyclical. That is, spend when the economy is down and contract when the economy is up. This helps to smooth out the bumps. Critics claim falsely that Keynes promoted unlimited spending regardless of the state of the economy, and level that same charge against anyone who speaks out against the austerians.

Returning to the main point of the article, though, I would just point out that many non-NJ folks really underestimate the level of hatred that many NJ Dems had for Corzine. The only reason he was the nominee is because he threatened to use his personal fortune for a scorched-earth campaign against anyone who tried to primary him. Christie was elected by being the “not-Corzine”. That is hardly something that will translate outside of NJ.

Or in the old days, he could be considered a moderate, which has somehow become a dirty word. If both parties would actually work together, perhaps we could accomplish something. I’ve always disliked Chris Christie until fairly recently, but the fact that he is willing to work with other politicians is actually a plus for me.

“I’m an Obama guy but it was jarring to me to see how deferiential Christie was to the President right before the election.

If I were a Republican I’d be wary of every trusting a guy who so obviously undercut his parties nominee like that.”

I think that people underestimate the intelligence of the GOP here. Yes, Gingrich’s tonal aggressiveness may have made people support him despite his personal scandals his unreliability, and his loose-cannon-ness. But not for long. He crashed and burned because people realized what he was.

Gingrich could do so in fits and starts, but once he started to gain support, a pile of former colleagues would pop up on Fox to tell the voters that Newt was actually a whiny squish, or whatever.

It’s not that he was a squish; it’s the flipside of what Galupo was saying; he could polarize even when compromising; he could come off as an extremist even when being moderate. He was just an alienating figure for so many reasons.

One also needs to point out here the problem with McCain. McCain’s problem was not exactly moderation; it was that he seemed to revel in attacking his own party; that he was on the side of the media against his own party seemed a point of pride for him. And the issue where he chose to go to the extreme side of his party (the war) was probably the least popular issue it had.

You know, it seems to me that the entire argument for Christie here is absurd.

For one thing, the Nichols article you link does very little to show Christie to be a social conservative. In essence, he refused to fund organizations which were associated with abortion. That’s the only fact we are given.

Beyong that, his entire argument for his conservatism seems to be “he hates unions and loves low taxes.”

Moreover, Galupo’s last two paragraphs miss the point entirely.

Yes, he’s “moderate” on immigration and guns. Those seem like big deals now, but I suspect they will be less so by 2015.

Immigration and guns are the two biggest issues for a lot of blue-collar conservatives. “He wants lower taxes for people making over $200,000 a year and loves busting unions” is actually a lot less popular among some conservatives than “he protects gun rights and doesn’t want to flood the country with cheap labor.” I would wager, as Mario says, that he’s also very “conservative” (Bushish) on foreign policy, which, believe it or not, is not a huge selling point to many people.

What you are arguing is that he is very conservative on issues that establishment conservatism cares deeply about, so rank-and-file conservatives should not get greedy and ask that he support their issues as well. To a lot of the rank-and-file, those all-important tax and anti-union credentials might actually not matter a whole lot. I’m sure that a lot of rank-and-file conservatives would rather vote for someone who would not bust unions and who would raise taxes, if they could keep their gun rights and if the border were closed.

Essentially, you are telling the peons to shut up and know our place.

Christie’s longer-term hurdle will be to dispel the notion that he is too solicitous of media favor… Chris Christie may not be enough of a jerk to satisfy the Breitbart right.

Not being solicitous of media favor isn’t about not being a jerk. It just means that you refuse to back down on things you really believe in when the media gets after you, and you refuse to flatter the media.

For me, the snubbing of Christie by CPAC and the inviting of Donald Trump, is a sterling example of everything that has gone tragically, horribly, wrong with the conservative movement. Hey, am not on a Christie bandwagon and disagree with him on guns, but this idea that he is some sort of moderate or RINO, says nothing about him, but says volumes about how “off the rails”, conservatism has gone.

We MUST promote candidates who can win at least some votes, in urban, (heck, I’ll settle for suburban.), areas. Who can win the votes of minorities and single moms, concerned about things like schools, health care, and yes, even guns. We must have people who don’t come across like they have utter contempt for half the country. Christie is one of those guys. In 2016, it will not be a choice between a Christie or a Glenn Beckite or Trumpite, or Bachmannite. It will be a choice between either a rational conservative like Christie, or President Hillary Clinton, because the Michelle Bachmanns and Ted Cruz’s of the party, don’t stand a snowball’s chance, of ever winning 270+ electoral votes .

“The perception that he’s some kind of squish or turncoat is a manifestation of the self-defeating tribal warfare between conservatives.”
The civil war going on inside the GOP right now is both welcome and necessary. Whether it’s the Tea Party vs. the RINOs, or the neo-white nationalists (race realists) vs. the multi-ethnic populists, or the libertarians vs. the neo-cons; the current Republican Party needs to figure out what it really stands for. I, for one, believe the only common sense route is a return to the concept of individual liberty. What does this mean in concrete terms? Limited government (shutter whole departments, like the IRS), moderation & realism in foreign policy (walk softly, but carry a big stick), common sense on social issues (Roe v. Wade is bad law, but it’s not going anywhere), and real race realism, i.e., a return to true merit based on what people can actually do in the marketplace, not what erroneous, pre-judgmental, suffocating stereotypes & IQ theories say they can or can’t do (therefore, eliminate affirmative action and ‘legacy’ admissions and class-based nepotism). Based on those criteria, Chris Christie fails miserably; like Sarah Palin, he’s purely a creation of and a reaction to the facile social-mediaification of our increasingly Roman republic. If he gets the nod in 2016, I’ll vote for Hillary just out of spite (and the money I’ve previously given to the RNC will stay in my bank account).

“For me, the snubbing of Christie by CPAC and the inviting of Donald Trump, is a sterling example of everything that has gone tragically, horribly, wrong with the conservative movement. Hey, am not on a Christie bandwagon and disagree with him on guns, but this idea that he is some sort of moderate or RINO, says nothing about him, but says volumes about how “off the rails”, conservatism has gone.”

As someone on this thread who actually voted for Christie in the general election for Governor after voting for Steve Lonegan in the primary I can assure you that Christie is not a conservative. He is in the mold of the big government Rockefeller/ Bush/ Rove GOP politican.

Christie is fine for NJ. Actually he’s the best we can do but he would be a diasater nationally. This author claims something that Christie doesn’t- that he’s a conservative. . His sucking up to Obama’s has worked in this state. Democratic donors are lining up to give him cash. Do you think that would happen for any real conservative?http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/major_democratic_donors_flock.html

For those who don’t follow Christie in NJ . Here are some great links on what he really stands for.

1) Christie caved on Obamacare which after the Federal money dries up will stick NJ taxpayers with the bill.http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chris-christie-caves-obamacare-offers-false-defense_704804.html
2) Christie is against the 2nd amendment and gun rights.http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/chris-christie-unveils-sweeping-gun-control-plans/
3) He’s an open borders guy. From his own Wikipedia page
Illegal immigration
While serving as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Christie stressed that simply “[b]eing in this country without proper documentation is not a crime,” but rather a civil wrong; and that undocumented people are not criminals unless they have re-entered the country after being deported. As such, Christie stated, responsibility for dealing with improperly documented foreign nationals lies with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office.[25]
Christie has been critical about section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted in 1996, which can be used to grant local law enforcement officers power to perform immigration law enforcement functions.